They're real NPCs, but they're also WoW NPCs. I wouldn't regard them as any of the WoW Death Knight NPCs that existed prior to the Death Knight class.

These NPCs are using Warlock-based abilities, because that is the closest thing that exists. In the case of Illidan, he is a special raid boss, and I wouldn't use that particular version of him as source material for a playable class unless it can be reworked to fit. I mean this is the same as using 4 Horsemen or Arthas as an example as a case for-or-against Death Knights. Just because 4 Horsemen can summon meteors or use Holy magic, Death Knights should be lumped into the same themes? Of course not, those are special named characters with their own identities. Even Baron Rivendare summoned armies of skeletons; an ability that player Death Knights do not have or share.

NPC abilities are a very fickle thing to base any playable class on. If you go down this route, you are making the same fallacies that Teriz has been using saying that Scarlet Monastery and Auchenai Crypts Monks validates the inclusion of the playable Monk class. They have absolutely no correlation to each other.

Any new Demon Hunter class would gain a consistent and concrete theme that fits within their own archetype, with lore explaining so. This would all be derived from the original source, Warcraft 3, as the Monk and Death Knight classes both adhered to. Notice that both of those classes had almost no influence by any existing NPCs existing in the game, they were completely self-contained and drawn inspiration directly through Warcraft 3; even if abilities were not carried over 1:1. If you look at the original Warcraft 3 identity of the Demon Hunter, the only thing it really has in common with Warlocks is the the Demonic transformation. They use no shadow abilities whatsoever. NPCs could be similar to Warlocks, and that would have absolutely no relation to the relationship a Playable DH has with Warlocks.

If you really want to build a case against the Demon Hunter's Identity conflicts, I would at least treat it in the same manner the Death Knight and Monk were added in the game. Both of those classes already faced the same tribulations that the Demon Hunter is being presented with right now, and despite whatever similarities or conflicts that exist, they were able to fit in perfectly.

They're real NPCs, but they're also WoW NPCs. I wouldn't regard them as any of the Death Knight NPCs that existed prior to the Death Knight class.

These NPCs are using Warlock-based abilities, because that is the closest thing that exists. In the case of Illidan, he is a special raid boss, and I wouldn't use that particular version of him as source material for a playable class unless it can be reworked to fit. I mean this is the same as using 4 Horsemen or Arthas as an example as a case for-or-against Death Knights. Just because 4 Horsemen can summon meteors or use Holy magic, Death Knights should be lumped into the same themes? Of course not, those are special named characters with their own identities. Even Baron Rivendare summoned armies of skeletons; an ability that player Death Knights do not have or share.

NPC abilities are a very fickle thing to base any playable class on. If you go down this route, you are making the same fallacies that Teriz has been using saying that Scarlet Monastery and Auchenai Crypts Monks validates the inclusion of the playable Monk class. They have absolutely no correlation to each other.

Any new Demon Hunter class would gain a consistent and concrete theme that fits within their own archetype, with lore explaining so. This would all be derived from the original source, Warcraft 3, as the Monk and Death Knight classes both adhered to. Notice that both of those classes had almost no influence by any existing NPCs existing in the game, they were completely self-contained and drawn inspiration directly through Warcraft 3; even if abilities were not carried over 1:1.

NPC abilities are anything but fickle. The devs have free reign to give an npc whatever spells they believe fit him. They aren't tied down to a class system. Those npcs aren't using actual warlock spells, they're using npc spells that were purposefully made to mimic warlock spells. Why would they have made them use warlock-like spells if it would have taken exactly as much effort to give them unique ones?

And this isn't about making a case for or against anything. This is about seeing someone make the claim that Demon Hunters "can't" or "don't" do something that they are on record doing in canon, and getting irritated about how factually inaccurate it is.

They are. The game calls them demon hunters, every npc who refers to them calls them demon hunters. They're demon hunters. The distinction is a fan invention that Blizzard is not beholden to.

The fact they do something else than they used to, and that instead of fighting demons they willing cooperate with them and embrace the corruption is enough of a distinction. Game also calls them Illidari Demon Hunters, if you want to nitpick.

The fact they do something else than they used to, and that instead of fighting demons they willing cooperate with them and embrace the corruption is enough of a distinction. Game also calls them Illidari Demon Hunters, if you want to nitpick.

They are clearly not demon hunting, the are working with demons instead, they serve the guy with a nickname Betrayer, but you claim that the distinction is player invented, because "they game still calls them demon hunters". How is that called then, picking one chosen detail, ignoring all the obvious rest, and basing your argument on it? Maybe I used the wrong figure of speech then, doesn't matter, you're wrong. Illidari demon hunters are not what a demon hunter class would be.

Btw, I am not arguing if DHs use shadow magic or not, since I don't really know, but I am certainly arguing against using Illidan the Betrayer as an example of DH summoning demons or DH iconic look. Blindfold, tatoos, warglaives, yes, but horns, wings, hooves and summoning demons - that's what you get when you are the Betrayer.

NPC abilities are anything but fickle. The devs have free reign to give an npc whatever spells they believe fit him. They aren't tied down to a class system. Those npcs aren't using actual warlock spells, they're using npc spells that were purposefully made to mimic warlock spells. Why would they have made them use warlock-like spells if it would have taken exactly as much effort to give them unique ones?

And this isn't about making a case for or against anything. This is about seeing someone make the claim that Demon Hunters "can't" or "don't" do something that they are on record doing in canon, and getting irritated about how factually inaccurate it is.

This is about player classes, not npcs. DH npcs are not players. The theme and abilities of npcs does not reate to playable classes.

The absorption thing is from an RPG sourcebook. That means it's in canon limbo, neither true nor false. The only demon hunter who ever absorbed anything in canon was Illidan, who absorbed the Skull of Gul'dan. Gul'dan was not a demon. He was a warlock.

And demon hunters do use shadow magic. Alandien. Shadowfury.

And demon hunters do use curses. Varedis. Illidari Highlord. Curse of Flames.

And demon hunters do summon demons. Illidan. Summon Shadow Demons.

And don't start telling me none of the above are "real" demon hunters.

No. This are gameplay mechanics. Garrosh uses shadow damage, but he isn't a warlock or shadow priest.
DKs using fire and holy in naxx? Yes, no problem,. Because game mechanics give this path to go.
Monks using bleeds? Yes, in early SM/precata. Game mechanics!!! and too much ETC.
Now, you are talking that demonhunters NPCs has adds (final boss of an expansion!!!), use some curses and use some shadow damage...

Use logic plis.
If Blizzard needs to put abilities to some NPCs, they don't create new, just change an already existing ones or use the same skills with different numbers.
And in my opinion, I see a really good thing if they try to put curses from melee range (bleed/diseases/venoms for melee char!! it fits the thematic and has a link to warlocks that they use same type of energy), but again, that's my opinion. If they want to create a rogue 2.0, they can too.

They are clearly not demon hunting, the are working with demons instead, they serve the guy with a nickname Betrayer, but you claim that the distinction is player invented, because "they game still calls them demon hunters". How is that called then, picking one chosen detail, ignoring all the obvious rest, and basing your argument on it? Maybe I used the wrong figure of speech then, doesn't matter, you're wrong. Illidari demon hunters are not what a demon hunter class would be.

Btw, I am not arguing if DHs use shadow magic or not, since I don't really know, but I am certainly arguing against using Illidan the Betrayer as an example of DH summoning demons or DH iconic look. Blindfold, tatoos, warglaives, yes, but horns, wings, hooves and summoning demons - that's what you get when you are the Betrayer.

I could give two farts what random guy #360000 on the forums thinks a Demon Hunter ought to be. When I want to know what it is, I go to a canon source. And I provide links. Illidan is not a Demon Hunter, he's the Demon Hunter. All Demon Hunters everywhere owe their existence to him. Any conversation about Demon Hunters that leaves him out is an unserious one. And frankly I'm getting tired of seeing him trotted out when it suits the pro-Demon Hunter argument, then quickly shuffled back under the rug when any of his attributes don't mesh with the point they're trying to make.

I could give two farts what random guy #360000 on the forums thinks a Demon Hunter ought to be. When I want to know what it is, I go to a canon source. And I provide links. Illidan is not a Demon Hunter, he's the Demon Hunter. All Demon Hunters everywhere owe their existence to him. Any conversation about Demon Hunters that leaves him out is an unserious one. And frankly I'm getting tired of seeing him trotted out when it suits the pro-Demon Hunter argument, then quickly shuffled back under the rug when any of his attributes don't mesh with the point they're trying to make.

Nobody here is removing Illidan. But just use the DEMON HUNTER Illidan, because we are talking about Tinkerers (really?) and Demon Hunters.
Use canon source, and you will see Demon Hunters without horns, hoofs and wings. But you can go to any Illidan source and find that he has hoofs, horns and wings. Difference between DH and Illidan? One is a class, the other one is a Blizz character that started like a mage, created the premise of a DH, evolved and was corrupted and then transformed into a Demon (yes, a Demon!!!), and at last, was killed and looted.

What's a demon hunter? It's obviously a warlock!!

edit:
Some interesting points:
Illidan transformation is attributed for 2 source (we don't know what source was the one that transformed Illidan):
-Gift from Kil'jaeden (empowerment).
-Absorb the remaining fel energies from skull of Gul'dan. (this is the winning one at this moment).
This is WHY he has this. So, all DH should have horns, wings, hoofs, smoke and all this things? No!! only Illidan accomplished this transformation.

I could give two farts what random guy #360000 on the forums thinks a Demon Hunter ought to be. When I want to know what it is, I go to a canon source. And I provide links. Illidan is not a Demon Hunter, he's the Demon Hunter. All Demon Hunters everywhere owe their existence to him. Any conversation about Demon Hunters that leaves him out is an unserious one. And frankly I'm getting tired of seeing him trotted out when it suits the pro-Demon Hunter argument, then quickly shuffled back under the rug when any of his attributes don't mesh with the point they're trying to make.

Yes, and Arthas the Lich King is a great example of a paladin, because he used to be one. Are you even serious? You really can't understand that people use ILLIDAN THE DEMON HUNTER as role model for future possible DH class, and not ILLIDAN THE BETRAYER, and that those two are not the same?

Arthas never used frost or blood magic. Player DKs are not Arthas, even if they trained under him. That is the crux or the argument. Arthas does not define player DKs so why should Illidan define players?

Yes, and Arthas the Lich King is a great example of a paladin, because he used to be one. Are you even serious? You really can't understand that people use ILLIDAN THE DEMON HUNTER as role model for future possible DH class, and not ILLIDAN THE BETRAYER, and that those two are not the same?

Illidan got the Betrayer title about ten thousand years before he turned into a demon. Source. We saw the exact moment that he got it in the Well of Eternity 5 man back in Cata. He was always a character with questionable ethics. You act like he turned into something completely new when he gained his demon form, but he didn't change one bit. It only made his outside appearance match his inner one. I'd even venture to say, given what we found out in the warlock-specific quest chain in Black Temple, that he's been retconned into not having gone insane in TBC, but just changed his tactics for beating the Legion to turning demons against them by giving them an alternative magic source. Fel orcs, the draining of Magtheridon's blood. All "fighting fire with fire," same as always.

Illidan got the Betrayer title about ten thousand years before he turned into a demon. Source. We saw the exact moment that he got it in the Well of Eternity 5 man back in Cata. He was always a character with questionable ethics. You act like he turned into something completely new when he gained his demon form, but he didn't change one bit. It only made his outside appearance match his inner one. I'd even venture to say, given what we found out in the warlock-specific quest chain in Black Temple, that he's been retconned into not having gone insane in TBC, but just changed his tactics for beating the Legion to turning demons against them by giving them an alternative magic source. Fel orcs, the draining of Magtheridon's blood. All "fighting fire with fire," same as always.

I actually didn't know about it. I stand corrected.

Still, that doesn't change my point - while he remained Illidan, he was no longer a demon hunter, and we are talking about a possible Demon Hunter class, not Illidan class.

I wouldn't say he isn't a demon hunter. He's just not a representation of any playable demon hunters.

I thing that the he still is a DH. Like Garrosh in the last phase is a warrior. But for X circumstances, they changed a little: Illidan with hoofs, horns, etc...; and Garrosh with some eyes here and there and purple "things" over his body (and over-musculated body).

I wouldn't say he isn't a demon hunter. He's just not a representation of any playable demon hunters.

And again, that's not the point I was making. This isn't about what hypothetical player characters could and could not do, this is about what Demon Hunters do and do not do, in lore, and there is a post a page back stating with nary a trace of irony that Demon Hunters do not use shadow magic, do not cast curses and do not summon demons. These are all demonstrably false, with multiple counterexamples for each one. But instead of admitting that, we get a whole treatment on whether or not they were actual demon hunters or some imaginary class that a demon hunter who doesn't hunt demons falls into.

When you change the criteria for what is and isn't a demon hunter according to your own arbitrary standards, then demon hunters don't have anything in common with warlocks. Unfortunately, we don't live in Fantasyland.

Nah, You did a concept time ago without any problem. Pay a professional to do his job and wait. Easy and without any problem.

That concept also included the abilities now firmly in the hands of Warlocks, Rogues, and the deleted abilities from Priests.

I also included an entire spec that wouldn't work, since Blizzard has completely removed mana-stealing abilities from the game.

My concept could never work as an actual class in the actual game.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Thimagryn

You continually cite that Warlock Death Coil was not the same as Death Knight's version. By that same logic, Rogue Evasion and Warlock Immolation Aura are not the same as Demon Hunter's Evasion and Immolation. The only carry over would be Metamorphosis. But that could be completely excused by the fact that both recently added classes do not have their ultimates in the approrpriate specs. Brewmasters don't have Storm, Earth and Fire. DK's don't have Animate Dead at all.

Does it matter if Brewmasters don't have SE&F? The Monk class has it. As for DK's, Animate Dead= Army of the Dead. For some reason, Blizzard can't use animate dead as an ability. Another major point you seem to miss is that other classes don't have either ability, so its nothing like the Warlock, Rogue, and DH situation.

If you extend this to existing character classes, Paladins don't have Ressurection, Mages don't have Mass Teleport and Priestess doesn't have Starfall. It means that the concept can still carry over even if it doesn't use all 4 spells, and has similarly themed replacements instead.

The Paladin ability was actually Mass Resurrection. No other class has Mass Teleport or Mass Resurrection.

Priestesses don't have Starfall because the PotM wasn't a Priest. It was a unique NE unit that couldn't be defined by WoW's classes. That's why PotM's abilities were broken up between Hunters and Druids.

It's all relevant to a Playable Demon Hunter class. Those conflicts arise when faced with the overarching problem people are wary of, that being "They're too similar to Warlocks".

If you consider lore, all Death Knight NPCs are Death Knights. The lore allows a wide range to exist, from Teron Gorefiend to Baron Rivendare to the 4 Horsemen to Arthas. The DK player class is also a Death Knight in lore. Any discussion between Death Knights and conflicts with other player classes will exclusively be tied to the player class, regardless of what any other NPC can or can not do.

The same exists here. When we talk about Demon Hunters and lore, we are talking about what is relevant to the potential Player class, not what any NPC represents. NPCs have absolutely no bearing on a player class, and if they use Shadow magic or summon Demons, that is indicative of that NPC.

I understand your problems with this, since the whole idea of a Demon Hunter player class is nebulous. The criteria and lore can change to suit whatever needs to make it plausible, and that seems biased. That is the point. The very concept of the Demon Hunter class does not yet exist, and is not yet defined. It is by this very reason that it should not be put up to comparison with any existing WoW class, such as saying it's too similar to Warlocks or Rogues; or that they are limited because their abilities from Warcraft 3 have been given to other classes.

If you look at the two added classes as any example, Death Knights and Monks have no relatable NPCs that they were based off of. Their lore is entirely based on their own, separate from every existing NPC that came before them. There is no reason for Illidan or any other Demon Hunter NPC to indicate of how a Player class would be represented in the game. The class must represent its own identity, and if the issue comes into conflict with any other idea such as being too similar to Warlocks, it is plausible to change or accomodate that conflict. That is why there is plausibility to exist.

It's all relevant to a Playable Demon Hunter class. Those conflicts arise when faced with the overarching problem people are wary of, that being "They're too similar to Warlocks".

If you consider lore, all Death Knight NPCs are Death Knights. The lore allows a wide range to exist, from Teron Gorefiend to Baron Rivendare to the 4 Horsemen to Arthas. The DK player class is also a Death Knight in lore. Any discussion between Death Knights and conflicts with other player classes will exclusively be tied to the player class, regardless of what any other NPC can or can not do.

The same exists here. When we talk about Demon Hunters and lore, we are talking about what is relevant to the potential Player class, not what any NPC represents. NPCs have absolutely no bearing on a player class, and if they use Shadow magic or summon Demons, that is indicative of that NPC.

I understand your problems with this, since the whole idea of a Demon Hunter player class is nebulous. The criteria and lore can change to suit whatever needs to make it plausible, and that seems biased. That is the point. The very concept of the Demon Hunter class does not yet exist, and is not yet defined. It is by this very reason that it should not be put up to comparison with any existing WoW class, such as saying it's too similar to Warlocks or Rogues; or that they are limited because their abilities from Warcraft 3 have been given to other classes.

If you look at the two added classes as any example, Death Knights and Monks have no relatable NPCs that they were based off of. Their lore is entirely based on their own, separate from every existing NPC that came before them. There is no reason for Illidan or any other Demon Hunter NPC to indicate of how a Player class would be represented in the game. The class must represent its own identity, and if the issue comes into conflict with any other idea such as being too similar to Warlocks, it is plausible to change or accomodate that conflict. That is why there is plausibility to exist.

Again with the lore....

Let's keep it simple; Before the introduction of DKs and Monks, all of their corresponding WC3 abilities were open. None existed in other classes. There was Death Coil with Warlocks, but it wasn't the same spell.

With Demon Hunters, EVERY SINGLE ABILITY is absorbed by existing classes, and those abilities are major abilities in their respective classes. So you can't just switch them around, or replace them, or remove them.